Details
Root of The Middle Way – Session 16
Teachers:
Collection:
- Buddhist Classics and Philosophy
Location:
- Rangjung Yeshe Institute - Nepal
Features:
- Subtitles ,
- Transcripts
Excerpt
Lecture 16 challenges conventional understanding of how language captures actions like walking and delves into the intricate dynamics of linguistic expression.
Description
In Lecture 16, the exploration of “going” and “coming” in the context of walking continues. The focus shifts to how language expresses walking and the interplay between sentence elements. Stanza three raises the possibility that either the path or the verb in a sentence can convey the essence of walking, rendering the other element meaningless. Stanza four presents an alternative viewpoint where both the path and the verb share the meaning of walking, maintaining the significance of both components. Stanzas five and six explore the implications of associating the act of going with both the path and the verb. The discussion underscores the complexity of language and its versatility in conveying meaning.
Related Course Info
- Root of the Middle Way – Mūlamadhyamakakārikā A course on Nagarjuna’s brilliantly sharp reasoning, taught by Dr. Thomas Doctor at the Rangjung Yeshe Institute over a month. For everyone with an interest in the way things really are.
Video
Audio
"That which originates
dependently does not
cease and does not
arise, is not annihilated
and is not permanent,
does not come and does
not go, is not different
and not the same.
To the true teacher
who reveals this peace,
the complete pacification
of constructs,
to the perfect Buddha I bow down."
So yesterday we began to look at the chapter of Going and Coming and we looked at the first stanza to some extent saying that where there has been going there is no going in the present, going is over there, where there has, going has yet to occur there is no going either and aside from what has been traversed and not traversed, no place where walking occurs can be identified. So looking at going in terms of locating it at a path because, as we also said, the action, the one who performs the action or the one that performs the action and the location or the object to which it relates, once you have one you will have to have the other two as well. So therefore it makes sense to, when wanting to, look closer at what walking is and where movement can be found, then to ask which path is the present walking occurring on? And then we noticed that wherever we look at any instance of walking we can take a look again on one of these very nice videos that I'm… Let's see.
So you can try and follow, keep that perspective in mind as you watch.
Where's the point of present walking? Which path is that of the present walking? Apart from what has already been covered and what is yet to be traversed, there is no place for present walking. So that's what we looked at yesterday. And since those two are mutually exclusive, since by necessity, if we're not talking about the path where going has been completed, then we must be talking about the path where going has not yet been completed. And the path where going has not yet been completed is the path of future going. And so we are left with no present. Or otherwise if we want to save some idea of present walking, then we run into the seeming solution that we have looked at in other contexts, the sense itself perhaps, so that we say there's a sense of something that has been effectuated there is walking now, but it has not been completed, and so that is the present. But what this really means is that we have an element of going really there, and that means that it's complete, the act of going. And although we also want to say that at the same time there's an element of going not have been, having not been accomplished yet, it's an action that is being carried out. And so there's this element of the future also and of course those two don't sit well together to say the least. So looking at going in terms of locating at any of the paths of the three times, the path of past walking, the path of future walking, and the path of present walking does not leave us any access to going in the present. Will we know if they all leave? I guess, yeah. If you hear and if you see then let's all go down and be there when they open the stupa, no?
So if I don't notice it, please make me aware, yeah? If it happens, they say. "You mean when many other people pass by then?" Yeah, when the whole gathering will go down there to open the stupa, yeah? So I heard it would be any moment now.
Now then after that we talked about an objection that comes about in stanza two where it says "Where there is movement there is going and movement is found where walking takes place, not where walking has been, not where it has yet to occur, but right there where there's present movement, going is found where walking takes place." So that is someone who does not really like to accept this conclusion that presents itself based on stanza one and who says no, no, it's not like that. You can just watch where the movement takes place and that's where you find it's where the feet are presently stepping. That's where present walking is placed. That is the path that is qualified by present walking. And then we also went into the third stanza. But what I said about the third stanza doesn't really fit that well with what the commentary says. So I would sort of like to backtrack a little bit there. Let's start with that from the beginning today. It's the same principles but the flow of the commentary is different. So if you read the commentary alongside this it might be nice to also having gone through the verses in that way. In any case it's nice to go through the verses in that way. So let's backtrack and begin with stanza three today. So then the stuff with the agent is for later and what we're talking about here is just again among these three principles that we say are necessary for walking. So there are these three principles, right? Agent of walking over here. The agent then the action--walking--and the location--the place where it occurs. So those three things are required. If we have to have walking then there's got to be a place where it happens. And that's what we have been looking at. Looking for looking at the place where walking happens in order to really zoom in on walking and find the place where it occurs.
So in stanza three then what we're going to do is to look at the action of walking and the place. So those two.
So if you sort of bracket what we talked about yesterday and then look at it in this way instead,
there's the act of going and that's just a single act of going. And why do we know that? Because that's a single effect of going. There's one arriving and not many of those. So there's a single act of going. And so what when we say a statement like "Thomas walks to school."
Or "Thomas walks on his path to school," then which element in the sentence picks out the act of walking?
So the path to school if we say that that is where we find the walking. So now we're looking at the statement just. "Thomas walks on his path to school." And now where do we locate which of these three elements in the sentence talk about or refers to the act of going? That's just one act of going. So where, which.. there are a whole lot of words here, no? or a whole lot of sentence elements. There are three at least. There's Thomas, then there's his walking, and then the path to school that he's walking on. So we could say that the act of walking refers to, no sorry, that any of these three statements refers to the act of walking. That's equally possible. So if we first of all say that in this sentence "Thomas walks on his path to school," it's his path to school that really that is the referent that expresses and that points.. that expresses the act of walking. And why would we say that? We would say that because up until now we have talked about walking in terms of finding it on a path. So it would make good sense to say that the act of walking, where does it.. in the sentence which element of the sentence actually refers to the act of walkin? We could say it's the path where walking occurs on. But since there's just a single act of walking if we have identified the path with that then what about 'walks'? So 'walks' is no longer the verb phrase. The verb phrase has then no meaning. If we say that what is meaningful in that sentence in terms of expressing the act of walking is the path upon which walking occurs then what about the verb which we would otherwise think refers to the act of walking? So by now that word or that part of the sentence has zero meaning. So try to hang on to this. It sounds like some sort of forced way of drawing conclusions from language. But try and see as we go what happens. So again to repeat we have three elements in the sentence. "Thomas walks on his school path." And which of those three elements in the sentence, the walker, Thomas, or his walking, or the path to school is the one that has meaning in terms of carrying the meaning of walking? And if we say that it is the school path that has that meaningful connection to walking then what are we saying when we say walks? Nothing. It has zero meaning. So "Going where walking takes place how could that make sense, when without going there cannot reasonably be any place where walking takes place." Now why.. then we could do it the opposite way and which we have in stanza 4. "For whomever there is going where walking takes place it then follows that there is no going where walking takes place because going is found where walking takes place." So this is then according to the commentary this we can take.. there are many possible interpretations and the commentary also brings up several. But one way to understand this fourth stanza is that now we are looking at the opposite. The alternative, which is to say that in that sentence, "Thomas walks on his school path,"
in that sentence it is not the path but it's the walks, that verbal phrase, that verb that connects with walking. So the act of walking is expressed by that. And again then because there is just one single walking then what happens to the path? The school path is then a place that has nothing to do with walking. Because we have said the one act of walking is expressed by walks and what then with the path? The school path ought to be the place where walking happens, no? But now that path has become a place that is not expressed by the act of walking. And so it is a place where there is no walking. So Thomas walks on his path where there is no walking. That makes no sense, yeah?
Now, so what would be a way of getting out of this trouble, would you say?
Student: "Maybe to take all three as an expression of one." Yeah, exactly, that's what, not all three, but now we were just talking about two, yeah? We set aside the agent a little bit, right? So, and we're just looking at trouble by associating the verbal phrase with the act of walking and associating first the object phrase, meaning the place where walking occurs, we associated that with the actual act of walking and then we had no meaning of the verb and then we did it the other way around and associated the verb with the act of walking and then the location became divorced from walking. So just those two, but otherwise exactly, yeah? So how about we just split it, like we share the one walking among both of them, yeah? That is a pretty natural suggestion probably, no? And then that's what's being looked at in the next two stanzas, five and six. "If going took place where walking takes place, it would follow that there are two acts of going." So if going took place where walking takes place, meaning if we say that the "Thomas walks on his school path," walks refers to walking and so does the school path, then "it would follow that there are two acts of going, one due to which there is a place with walking and another that is the going that happens there." Yeah?
Okay, let's go, yeah? Thank you. Okay.
So yesterday we began to look at the chapter of Going and Coming and we looked at the first stanza to some extent saying that where there has been going there is no going in the present, going is over there, where there has, going has yet to occur there is no going either and aside from what has been traversed and not traversed, no place where walking occurs can be identified. So looking at going in terms of locating it at a path because, as we also said, the action, the one who performs the action or the one that performs the action and the location or the object to which it relates, once you have one you will have to have the other two as well. So therefore it makes sense to, when wanting to, look closer at what walking is and where movement can be found, then to ask which path is the present walking occurring on? And then we noticed that wherever we look at any instance of walking we can take a look again on one of these very nice videos that I'm… Let's see.
So you can try and follow, keep that perspective in mind as you watch.
Where's the point of present walking? Which path is that of the present walking? Apart from what has already been covered and what is yet to be traversed, there is no place for present walking. So that's what we looked at yesterday. And since those two are mutually exclusive, since by necessity, if we're not talking about the path where going has been completed, then we must be talking about the path where going has not yet been completed. And the path where going has not yet been completed is the path of future going. And so we are left with no present. Or otherwise if we want to save some idea of present walking, then we run into the seeming solution that we have looked at in other contexts, the sense itself perhaps, so that we say there's a sense of something that has been effectuated there is walking now, but it has not been completed, and so that is the present. But what this really means is that we have an element of going really there, and that means that it's complete, the act of going. And although we also want to say that at the same time there's an element of going not have been, having not been accomplished yet, it's an action that is being carried out. And so there's this element of the future also and of course those two don't sit well together to say the least. So looking at going in terms of locating at any of the paths of the three times, the path of past walking, the path of future walking, and the path of present walking does not leave us any access to going in the present. Will we know if they all leave? I guess, yeah. If you hear and if you see then let's all go down and be there when they open the stupa, no?
So if I don't notice it, please make me aware, yeah? If it happens, they say. "You mean when many other people pass by then?" Yeah, when the whole gathering will go down there to open the stupa, yeah? So I heard it would be any moment now.
Now then after that we talked about an objection that comes about in stanza two where it says "Where there is movement there is going and movement is found where walking takes place, not where walking has been, not where it has yet to occur, but right there where there's present movement, going is found where walking takes place." So that is someone who does not really like to accept this conclusion that presents itself based on stanza one and who says no, no, it's not like that. You can just watch where the movement takes place and that's where you find it's where the feet are presently stepping. That's where present walking is placed. That is the path that is qualified by present walking. And then we also went into the third stanza. But what I said about the third stanza doesn't really fit that well with what the commentary says. So I would sort of like to backtrack a little bit there. Let's start with that from the beginning today. It's the same principles but the flow of the commentary is different. So if you read the commentary alongside this it might be nice to also having gone through the verses in that way. In any case it's nice to go through the verses in that way. So let's backtrack and begin with stanza three today. So then the stuff with the agent is for later and what we're talking about here is just again among these three principles that we say are necessary for walking. So there are these three principles, right? Agent of walking over here. The agent then the action--walking--and the location--the place where it occurs. So those three things are required. If we have to have walking then there's got to be a place where it happens. And that's what we have been looking at. Looking for looking at the place where walking happens in order to really zoom in on walking and find the place where it occurs.
So in stanza three then what we're going to do is to look at the action of walking and the place. So those two.
So if you sort of bracket what we talked about yesterday and then look at it in this way instead,
there's the act of going and that's just a single act of going. And why do we know that? Because that's a single effect of going. There's one arriving and not many of those. So there's a single act of going. And so what when we say a statement like "Thomas walks to school."
Or "Thomas walks on his path to school," then which element in the sentence picks out the act of walking?
So the path to school if we say that that is where we find the walking. So now we're looking at the statement just. "Thomas walks on his path to school." And now where do we locate which of these three elements in the sentence talk about or refers to the act of going? That's just one act of going. So where, which.. there are a whole lot of words here, no? or a whole lot of sentence elements. There are three at least. There's Thomas, then there's his walking, and then the path to school that he's walking on. So we could say that the act of walking refers to, no sorry, that any of these three statements refers to the act of walking. That's equally possible. So if we first of all say that in this sentence "Thomas walks on his path to school," it's his path to school that really that is the referent that expresses and that points.. that expresses the act of walking. And why would we say that? We would say that because up until now we have talked about walking in terms of finding it on a path. So it would make good sense to say that the act of walking, where does it.. in the sentence which element of the sentence actually refers to the act of walkin? We could say it's the path where walking occurs on. But since there's just a single act of walking if we have identified the path with that then what about 'walks'? So 'walks' is no longer the verb phrase. The verb phrase has then no meaning. If we say that what is meaningful in that sentence in terms of expressing the act of walking is the path upon which walking occurs then what about the verb which we would otherwise think refers to the act of walking? So by now that word or that part of the sentence has zero meaning. So try to hang on to this. It sounds like some sort of forced way of drawing conclusions from language. But try and see as we go what happens. So again to repeat we have three elements in the sentence. "Thomas walks on his school path." And which of those three elements in the sentence, the walker, Thomas, or his walking, or the path to school is the one that has meaning in terms of carrying the meaning of walking? And if we say that it is the school path that has that meaningful connection to walking then what are we saying when we say walks? Nothing. It has zero meaning. So "Going where walking takes place how could that make sense, when without going there cannot reasonably be any place where walking takes place." Now why.. then we could do it the opposite way and which we have in stanza 4. "For whomever there is going where walking takes place it then follows that there is no going where walking takes place because going is found where walking takes place." So this is then according to the commentary this we can take.. there are many possible interpretations and the commentary also brings up several. But one way to understand this fourth stanza is that now we are looking at the opposite. The alternative, which is to say that in that sentence, "Thomas walks on his school path,"
in that sentence it is not the path but it's the walks, that verbal phrase, that verb that connects with walking. So the act of walking is expressed by that. And again then because there is just one single walking then what happens to the path? The school path is then a place that has nothing to do with walking. Because we have said the one act of walking is expressed by walks and what then with the path? The school path ought to be the place where walking happens, no? But now that path has become a place that is not expressed by the act of walking. And so it is a place where there is no walking. So Thomas walks on his path where there is no walking. That makes no sense, yeah?
Now, so what would be a way of getting out of this trouble, would you say?
Student: "Maybe to take all three as an expression of one." Yeah, exactly, that's what, not all three, but now we were just talking about two, yeah? We set aside the agent a little bit, right? So, and we're just looking at trouble by associating the verbal phrase with the act of walking and associating first the object phrase, meaning the place where walking occurs, we associated that with the actual act of walking and then we had no meaning of the verb and then we did it the other way around and associated the verb with the act of walking and then the location became divorced from walking. So just those two, but otherwise exactly, yeah? So how about we just split it, like we share the one walking among both of them, yeah? That is a pretty natural suggestion probably, no? And then that's what's being looked at in the next two stanzas, five and six. "If going took place where walking takes place, it would follow that there are two acts of going." So if going took place where walking takes place, meaning if we say that the "Thomas walks on his school path," walks refers to walking and so does the school path, then "it would follow that there are two acts of going, one due to which there is a place with walking and another that is the going that happens there." Yeah?
Okay, let's go, yeah? Thank you. Okay.
"That which originates
dependently does not
cease and does not
arise, is not annihilated
and is not permanent,
does not come and does
not go, is not different
and not the same.
To the true teacher
who reveals this peace,
the complete pacification
of constructs,
to the perfect Buddha I bow down."
So yesterday we began to look at the chapter of Going and Coming and we looked at the first stanza to some extent saying that where there has been going there is no going in the present, going is over there, where there has, going has yet to occur there is no going either and aside from what has been traversed and not traversed, no place where walking occurs can be identified. So looking at going in terms of locating it at a path because, as we also said, the action, the one who performs the action or the one that performs the action and the location or the object to which it relates, once you have one you will have to have the other two as well. So therefore it makes sense to, when wanting to, look closer at what walking is and where movement can be found, then to ask which path is the present walking occurring on? And then we noticed that wherever we look at any instance of walking we can take a look again on one of these very nice videos that I'm… Let's see.
So you can try and follow, keep that perspective in mind as you watch.
Where's the point of present walking? Which path is that of the present walking? Apart from what has already been covered and what is yet to be traversed, there is no place for present walking. So that's what we looked at yesterday. And since those two are mutually exclusive, since by necessity, if we're not talking about the path where going has been completed, then we must be talking about the path where going has not yet been completed. And the path where going has not yet been completed is the path of future going. And so we are left with no present. Or otherwise if we want to save some idea of present walking, then we run into the seeming solution that we have looked at in other contexts, the sense itself perhaps, so that we say there's a sense of something that has been effectuated there is walking now, but it has not been completed, and so that is the present. But what this really means is that we have an element of going really there, and that means that it's complete, the act of going. And although we also want to say that at the same time there's an element of going not have been, having not been accomplished yet, it's an action that is being carried out. And so there's this element of the future also and of course those two don't sit well together to say the least. So looking at going in terms of locating at any of the paths of the three times, the path of past walking, the path of future walking, and the path of present walking does not leave us any access to going in the present. Will we know if they all leave? I guess, yeah. If you hear and if you see then let's all go down and be there when they open the stupa, no?
So if I don't notice it, please make me aware, yeah? If it happens, they say. "You mean when many other people pass by then?" Yeah, when the whole gathering will go down there to open the stupa, yeah? So I heard it would be any moment now.
Now then after that we talked about an objection that comes about in stanza two where it says "Where there is movement there is going and movement is found where walking takes place, not where walking has been, not where it has yet to occur, but right there where there's present movement, going is found where walking takes place." So that is someone who does not really like to accept this conclusion that presents itself based on stanza one and who says no, no, it's not like that. You can just watch where the movement takes place and that's where you find it's where the feet are presently stepping. That's where present walking is placed. That is the path that is qualified by present walking. And then we also went into the third stanza. But what I said about the third stanza doesn't really fit that well with what the commentary says. So I would sort of like to backtrack a little bit there. Let's start with that from the beginning today. It's the same principles but the flow of the commentary is different. So if you read the commentary alongside this it might be nice to also having gone through the verses in that way. In any case it's nice to go through the verses in that way. So let's backtrack and begin with stanza three today. So then the stuff with the agent is for later and what we're talking about here is just again among these three principles that we say are necessary for walking. So there are these three principles, right? Agent of walking over here. The agent then the action--walking--and the location--the place where it occurs. So those three things are required. If we have to have walking then there's got to be a place where it happens. And that's what we have been looking at. Looking for looking at the place where walking happens in order to really zoom in on walking and find the place where it occurs.
So in stanza three then what we're going to do is to look at the action of walking and the place. So those two.
So if you sort of bracket what we talked about yesterday and then look at it in this way instead,
there's the act of going and that's just a single act of going. And why do we know that? Because that's a single effect of going. There's one arriving and not many of those. So there's a single act of going. And so what when we say a statement like "Thomas walks to school."
Or "Thomas walks on his path to school," then which element in the sentence picks out the act of walking?
So the path to school if we say that that is where we find the walking. So now we're looking at the statement just. "Thomas walks on his path to school." And now where do we locate which of these three elements in the sentence talk about or refers to the act of going? That's just one act of going. So where, which.. there are a whole lot of words here, no? or a whole lot of sentence elements. There are three at least. There's Thomas, then there's his walking, and then the path to school that he's walking on. So we could say that the act of walking refers to, no sorry, that any of these three statements refers to the act of walking. That's equally possible. So if we first of all say that in this sentence "Thomas walks on his path to school," it's his path to school that really that is the referent that expresses and that points.. that expresses the act of walking. And why would we say that? We would say that because up until now we have talked about walking in terms of finding it on a path. So it would make good sense to say that the act of walking, where does it.. in the sentence which element of the sentence actually refers to the act of walkin? We could say it's the path where walking occurs on. But since there's just a single act of walking if we have identified the path with that then what about 'walks'? So 'walks' is no longer the verb phrase. The verb phrase has then no meaning. If we say that what is meaningful in that sentence in terms of expressing the act of walking is the path upon which walking occurs then what about the verb which we would otherwise think refers to the act of walking? So by now that word or that part of the sentence has zero meaning. So try to hang on to this. It sounds like some sort of forced way of drawing conclusions from language. But try and see as we go what happens. So again to repeat we have three elements in the sentence. "Thomas walks on his school path." And which of those three elements in the sentence, the walker, Thomas, or his walking, or the path to school is the one that has meaning in terms of carrying the meaning of walking? And if we say that it is the school path that has that meaningful connection to walking then what are we saying when we say walks? Nothing. It has zero meaning. So "Going where walking takes place how could that make sense, when without going there cannot reasonably be any place where walking takes place." Now why.. then we could do it the opposite way and which we have in stanza 4. "For whomever there is going where walking takes place it then follows that there is no going where walking takes place because going is found where walking takes place." So this is then according to the commentary this we can take.. there are many possible interpretations and the commentary also brings up several. But one way to understand this fourth stanza is that now we are looking at the opposite. The alternative, which is to say that in that sentence, "Thomas walks on his school path,"
in that sentence it is not the path but it's the walks, that verbal phrase, that verb that connects with walking. So the act of walking is expressed by that. And again then because there is just one single walking then what happens to the path? The school path is then a place that has nothing to do with walking. Because we have said the one act of walking is expressed by walks and what then with the path? The school path ought to be the place where walking happens, no? But now that path has become a place that is not expressed by the act of walking. And so it is a place where there is no walking. So Thomas walks on his path where there is no walking. That makes no sense, yeah?
Now, so what would be a way of getting out of this trouble, would you say?
Student: "Maybe to take all three as an expression of one." Yeah, exactly, that's what, not all three, but now we were just talking about two, yeah? We set aside the agent a little bit, right? So, and we're just looking at trouble by associating the verbal phrase with the act of walking and associating first the object phrase, meaning the place where walking occurs, we associated that with the actual act of walking and then we had no meaning of the verb and then we did it the other way around and associated the verb with the act of walking and then the location became divorced from walking. So just those two, but otherwise exactly, yeah? So how about we just split it, like we share the one walking among both of them, yeah? That is a pretty natural suggestion probably, no? And then that's what's being looked at in the next two stanzas, five and six. "If going took place where walking takes place, it would follow that there are two acts of going." So if going took place where walking takes place, meaning if we say that the "Thomas walks on his school path," walks refers to walking and so does the school path, then "it would follow that there are two acts of going, one due to which there is a place with walking and another that is the going that happens there." Yeah?
Okay, let's go, yeah? Thank you. Okay.
So yesterday we began to look at the chapter of Going and Coming and we looked at the first stanza to some extent saying that where there has been going there is no going in the present, going is over there, where there has, going has yet to occur there is no going either and aside from what has been traversed and not traversed, no place where walking occurs can be identified. So looking at going in terms of locating it at a path because, as we also said, the action, the one who performs the action or the one that performs the action and the location or the object to which it relates, once you have one you will have to have the other two as well. So therefore it makes sense to, when wanting to, look closer at what walking is and where movement can be found, then to ask which path is the present walking occurring on? And then we noticed that wherever we look at any instance of walking we can take a look again on one of these very nice videos that I'm… Let's see.
So you can try and follow, keep that perspective in mind as you watch.
Where's the point of present walking? Which path is that of the present walking? Apart from what has already been covered and what is yet to be traversed, there is no place for present walking. So that's what we looked at yesterday. And since those two are mutually exclusive, since by necessity, if we're not talking about the path where going has been completed, then we must be talking about the path where going has not yet been completed. And the path where going has not yet been completed is the path of future going. And so we are left with no present. Or otherwise if we want to save some idea of present walking, then we run into the seeming solution that we have looked at in other contexts, the sense itself perhaps, so that we say there's a sense of something that has been effectuated there is walking now, but it has not been completed, and so that is the present. But what this really means is that we have an element of going really there, and that means that it's complete, the act of going. And although we also want to say that at the same time there's an element of going not have been, having not been accomplished yet, it's an action that is being carried out. And so there's this element of the future also and of course those two don't sit well together to say the least. So looking at going in terms of locating at any of the paths of the three times, the path of past walking, the path of future walking, and the path of present walking does not leave us any access to going in the present. Will we know if they all leave? I guess, yeah. If you hear and if you see then let's all go down and be there when they open the stupa, no?
So if I don't notice it, please make me aware, yeah? If it happens, they say. "You mean when many other people pass by then?" Yeah, when the whole gathering will go down there to open the stupa, yeah? So I heard it would be any moment now.
Now then after that we talked about an objection that comes about in stanza two where it says "Where there is movement there is going and movement is found where walking takes place, not where walking has been, not where it has yet to occur, but right there where there's present movement, going is found where walking takes place." So that is someone who does not really like to accept this conclusion that presents itself based on stanza one and who says no, no, it's not like that. You can just watch where the movement takes place and that's where you find it's where the feet are presently stepping. That's where present walking is placed. That is the path that is qualified by present walking. And then we also went into the third stanza. But what I said about the third stanza doesn't really fit that well with what the commentary says. So I would sort of like to backtrack a little bit there. Let's start with that from the beginning today. It's the same principles but the flow of the commentary is different. So if you read the commentary alongside this it might be nice to also having gone through the verses in that way. In any case it's nice to go through the verses in that way. So let's backtrack and begin with stanza three today. So then the stuff with the agent is for later and what we're talking about here is just again among these three principles that we say are necessary for walking. So there are these three principles, right? Agent of walking over here. The agent then the action--walking--and the location--the place where it occurs. So those three things are required. If we have to have walking then there's got to be a place where it happens. And that's what we have been looking at. Looking for looking at the place where walking happens in order to really zoom in on walking and find the place where it occurs.
So in stanza three then what we're going to do is to look at the action of walking and the place. So those two.
So if you sort of bracket what we talked about yesterday and then look at it in this way instead,
there's the act of going and that's just a single act of going. And why do we know that? Because that's a single effect of going. There's one arriving and not many of those. So there's a single act of going. And so what when we say a statement like "Thomas walks to school."
Or "Thomas walks on his path to school," then which element in the sentence picks out the act of walking?
So the path to school if we say that that is where we find the walking. So now we're looking at the statement just. "Thomas walks on his path to school." And now where do we locate which of these three elements in the sentence talk about or refers to the act of going? That's just one act of going. So where, which.. there are a whole lot of words here, no? or a whole lot of sentence elements. There are three at least. There's Thomas, then there's his walking, and then the path to school that he's walking on. So we could say that the act of walking refers to, no sorry, that any of these three statements refers to the act of walking. That's equally possible. So if we first of all say that in this sentence "Thomas walks on his path to school," it's his path to school that really that is the referent that expresses and that points.. that expresses the act of walking. And why would we say that? We would say that because up until now we have talked about walking in terms of finding it on a path. So it would make good sense to say that the act of walking, where does it.. in the sentence which element of the sentence actually refers to the act of walkin? We could say it's the path where walking occurs on. But since there's just a single act of walking if we have identified the path with that then what about 'walks'? So 'walks' is no longer the verb phrase. The verb phrase has then no meaning. If we say that what is meaningful in that sentence in terms of expressing the act of walking is the path upon which walking occurs then what about the verb which we would otherwise think refers to the act of walking? So by now that word or that part of the sentence has zero meaning. So try to hang on to this. It sounds like some sort of forced way of drawing conclusions from language. But try and see as we go what happens. So again to repeat we have three elements in the sentence. "Thomas walks on his school path." And which of those three elements in the sentence, the walker, Thomas, or his walking, or the path to school is the one that has meaning in terms of carrying the meaning of walking? And if we say that it is the school path that has that meaningful connection to walking then what are we saying when we say walks? Nothing. It has zero meaning. So "Going where walking takes place how could that make sense, when without going there cannot reasonably be any place where walking takes place." Now why.. then we could do it the opposite way and which we have in stanza 4. "For whomever there is going where walking takes place it then follows that there is no going where walking takes place because going is found where walking takes place." So this is then according to the commentary this we can take.. there are many possible interpretations and the commentary also brings up several. But one way to understand this fourth stanza is that now we are looking at the opposite. The alternative, which is to say that in that sentence, "Thomas walks on his school path,"
in that sentence it is not the path but it's the walks, that verbal phrase, that verb that connects with walking. So the act of walking is expressed by that. And again then because there is just one single walking then what happens to the path? The school path is then a place that has nothing to do with walking. Because we have said the one act of walking is expressed by walks and what then with the path? The school path ought to be the place where walking happens, no? But now that path has become a place that is not expressed by the act of walking. And so it is a place where there is no walking. So Thomas walks on his path where there is no walking. That makes no sense, yeah?
Now, so what would be a way of getting out of this trouble, would you say?
Student: "Maybe to take all three as an expression of one." Yeah, exactly, that's what, not all three, but now we were just talking about two, yeah? We set aside the agent a little bit, right? So, and we're just looking at trouble by associating the verbal phrase with the act of walking and associating first the object phrase, meaning the place where walking occurs, we associated that with the actual act of walking and then we had no meaning of the verb and then we did it the other way around and associated the verb with the act of walking and then the location became divorced from walking. So just those two, but otherwise exactly, yeah? So how about we just split it, like we share the one walking among both of them, yeah? That is a pretty natural suggestion probably, no? And then that's what's being looked at in the next two stanzas, five and six. "If going took place where walking takes place, it would follow that there are two acts of going." So if going took place where walking takes place, meaning if we say that the "Thomas walks on his school path," walks refers to walking and so does the school path, then "it would follow that there are two acts of going, one due to which there is a place with walking and another that is the going that happens there." Yeah?
Okay, let's go, yeah? Thank you. Okay.
17:27
